Walaa B. Idris and I have various disagreements though we also have many agreements. Our main disagreement is about the Conservative Party of which Walaa is a staunch member and of whose leader she does not like hearing any criticisms. But we both admire Margaret Thatcher and think President Obama is an unfortunate blip in American history.
However, I do like Walaa's blog. And in particular I liked her latest posting: Why do I have to be just black? Read it all - not long and full of goodies.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Monday, February 1, 2010
They have noticed the problem
It would appear that the powers that be have noticed that there is a problem or two with Britain's libel laws and, more specifically, the habit of libel tourism about which this blog and EUReferendum has written repeatedly. (Which means that we may well have contributed a tiny amount to the powers that be noticing the problem.)
On Wednesday, a Written Statement was published in both Hansards, though true to my usual habit I am quoting from the Lords' one.
On Wednesday, a Written Statement was published in both Hansards, though true to my usual habit I am quoting from the Lords' one.
In response to concerns about the possibility that our libel laws are having a chilling effect on freedom of expression, the Government have set up a working group to examine issues relating to the substantive law on libel.There follows a list of members though not anything remotely resembling a time table to which the group might adhere. It will need careful watching.
The terms of reference of this group are "to consider whether the law of libel, including the law relating to libel tourism, in England and Wales needs reform, and if so to make recommendations as to solutions". A list of members of the working group is attached.
The scope of the group's considerations will extend to all aspects of substantive libel law in England and Wales, but will exclude issues relating to costs in defamation proceedings, where work is already underway. The working group is intended to have an intensive, short term focus and has been requested to make recommendations by mid-March.
A few annoyances
Well, I hope you all enjoyed Fred Astaire because I am now turning to things that annoy me. They have to do with the Conservative Party and its borg-like denizens (and that's enough to annoy one all by itself).
Here is, roughly speaking, a conversation one has had with them on numerous occasions. They tell one that life has become unbearable under the Blair-Brown government, which they oh so amusingly describe as Liebour, on the grounds that no Conservative politician has ever told lies. They then abuse one for wanting Brown to continue instead of going forward into the sunny uplands of Cameroonism.
One then points out that history did not start in 1997, that with the EU making 8o per cent of the legislation and Parliament either knowing nothing about it or not being allowed to throw it out, there will be precious little difference, whoever inhabits Number 10 after the next election. And, while we are on the subject, what about that cast-iron guarantee that there will be a referendum on theConstitutional Lisbon Treaty?
They then variously get into a tangle trying to explain that a.) the Boy-King did not really promise a referendum, b.) there is no point in it and, anyway, it is all Brown's fault and c.) the Boy-King will mysteriously restore powers to the Westminster Parliament. Or they accuse you of being a nasty spoiler, a one-trick pony and inform you that the electorate does not care about "Europe". (If there is one thing we know about the electorate it is that the Conservatives do not know what it cares about. Three handsome Labour victories and pathetic showings in by-elections and opinion polls tell us that.)
One then explains to them why saying "Europe" is a red herring and how all the subjects that the electorate does care about tend to be part of the European question. So what is the Boy-King and others going to do about it?
Then comes the clincher: let us forget about the past, they say, and look to the future. Stop wallowing in past treaties and agreements - look towards those sunny uplands.
Well, now, in the first place, those who do not know where they have come from are not likely to know where they are going. In other words, the future is hard to work out if we do not know the past. Secondly, and most importantly, the future depends on the past in a more direct fashion. Those treaties that they so cavalierly dismiss will hamstring any attempt (supposing it will be made) to restore powers to Westminster because in order to do so, the treaties have to be renegotiated from beginning to end. If the Conservatives are determined to forget the past then they are refusing to change anything about the situation. To do nothing about what has been agreed alread but to concentrate on the few, very few things that might be salvaged is not precisely a recipe for successful government.
Here is, roughly speaking, a conversation one has had with them on numerous occasions. They tell one that life has become unbearable under the Blair-Brown government, which they oh so amusingly describe as Liebour, on the grounds that no Conservative politician has ever told lies. They then abuse one for wanting Brown to continue instead of going forward into the sunny uplands of Cameroonism.
One then points out that history did not start in 1997, that with the EU making 8o per cent of the legislation and Parliament either knowing nothing about it or not being allowed to throw it out, there will be precious little difference, whoever inhabits Number 10 after the next election. And, while we are on the subject, what about that cast-iron guarantee that there will be a referendum on the
They then variously get into a tangle trying to explain that a.) the Boy-King did not really promise a referendum, b.) there is no point in it and, anyway, it is all Brown's fault and c.) the Boy-King will mysteriously restore powers to the Westminster Parliament. Or they accuse you of being a nasty spoiler, a one-trick pony and inform you that the electorate does not care about "Europe". (If there is one thing we know about the electorate it is that the Conservatives do not know what it cares about. Three handsome Labour victories and pathetic showings in by-elections and opinion polls tell us that.)
One then explains to them why saying "Europe" is a red herring and how all the subjects that the electorate does care about tend to be part of the European question. So what is the Boy-King and others going to do about it?
Then comes the clincher: let us forget about the past, they say, and look to the future. Stop wallowing in past treaties and agreements - look towards those sunny uplands.
Well, now, in the first place, those who do not know where they have come from are not likely to know where they are going. In other words, the future is hard to work out if we do not know the past. Secondly, and most importantly, the future depends on the past in a more direct fashion. Those treaties that they so cavalierly dismiss will hamstring any attempt (supposing it will be made) to restore powers to Westminster because in order to do so, the treaties have to be renegotiated from beginning to end. If the Conservatives are determined to forget the past then they are refusing to change anything about the situation. To do nothing about what has been agreed alread but to concentrate on the few, very few things that might be salvaged is not precisely a recipe for successful government.
Show time
Let us start Monday with something happy. Here is a sequence from Blue Skies, one of the Irving Berlin "compilation" films, with a terrible plot, great songs, Bing Crosby crooning (not a particular favourite of mine), Fed Astaire dancing, Olga San Juan being sultry and highly talented and Joan Caulfield being, well, Joan Caulfield. Billy de Wofe is also fun.
The film is a bit unbalanced - there is not enough Astaire and much of his dancing is in the first half. Bing ends up with the girl (sort of) as he almost always does in the Road ... movies. Personally, I have always found that rather strange as Bing Crosby had a great voice but absolutely zero sex appeal. No girl would prefer him to Fred Astaire. And to show what I mean, here is the stupendous sequence of Astaire dancing with many other Astaires, doing what he does best, Puttin' on the Ritz.
The film is a bit unbalanced - there is not enough Astaire and much of his dancing is in the first half. Bing ends up with the girl (sort of) as he almost always does in the Road ... movies. Personally, I have always found that rather strange as Bing Crosby had a great voice but absolutely zero sex appeal. No girl would prefer him to Fred Astaire. And to show what I mean, here is the stupendous sequence of Astaire dancing with many other Astaires, doing what he does best, Puttin' on the Ritz.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
So how much more are we going to be paying?
On January 20 Lord Stoddart's Written Question [scroll right down]
To ask Her Majesty's Government what effect a 6 per cent increase in the European Union budget for 2010 will have on the gross contribution of the United Kingdom to that budget.was answered by HMG.
Under the 2009 Adopted EC Budget, UK Own Resources payments were set at £10,879 million. Under the 2010 Adopted EC Budget UK contributions were calculated at £11,735 million.That comes to £856 million more, unless my maths is completely wonky. Why we should be handing more money over to the EU in the hopes of it creating an economic recovery or because that money might be delivered to other wasteful organizations faster is not entirely clear. Then again, compared the amount the government has wasted over the last few years, this is pitifully small.
A key driver for the size of the 2010 budget is the financing of the European economic recovery plan, as well as additional support from structural and cohesion funds for the new member states, many of whom have been hit hardest by the economic downturn. The overall budget increase is also partially driven by the expected acceleration in the delivery of those funds across the EU.
Great title
An amusing piece about Greece's financial travails in the Daily Telegraph that does point out the ridiculousness of the eurozone, which consists of countries that ought not to be tied together in one currency (but then it was a question of politics defeating economics) and a rather silly discussion afterwards, full of irrelevant comments.
The best part is the title: Greece is the word that should strike fear into all those who love the euro. Indeed. Shortly to be followed by the words Spain, Portugal and Ireland, not to mention Italy.
The best part is the title: Greece is the word that should strike fear into all those who love the euro. Indeed. Shortly to be followed by the words Spain, Portugal and Ireland, not to mention Italy.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Fraser Nelson seems to get it
Presumably I am not the only person who is thoroughly bored with the Chilcot Inquiry, which as the Boss over on EUReferendum had predicted on numerous occasions, has wasted its time on pointless toing and froing about the start of the war, dossiers, legality and illegality (as if there were such a concept when it comes to war) and, above all, allowed all sorts of civil servants, senior military officers, and important legal advisers to explain that they never wanted the war, no, indeed, it was all that nasty Blair-man.
There has also been a resurgence of the "saintly David Kelly was most certainly murdered because he would have done such things otherwise" school of political thought. All of it is too boring for words and is, needless to say, displacement activity. While everyone goes haring after those dossiers and discusses David Kelly ad nauseam, no attention is being paid to what really matters and that is British failure during the occupation of southern Iraq. This is or used to be, as readers of both blogs know, the Boss's particular subject and I am not about to wade into it. He has written much and very eloquently.
However, it is worth pointing out that one journalist, Fraser Nelson, now editor of the Spectator does get it, as this article shows. But, of course, it was not just Blair. One man could not have created that disaster on his own.
There has also been a resurgence of the "saintly David Kelly was most certainly murdered because he would have done such things otherwise" school of political thought. All of it is too boring for words and is, needless to say, displacement activity. While everyone goes haring after those dossiers and discusses David Kelly ad nauseam, no attention is being paid to what really matters and that is British failure during the occupation of southern Iraq. This is or used to be, as readers of both blogs know, the Boss's particular subject and I am not about to wade into it. He has written much and very eloquently.
However, it is worth pointing out that one journalist, Fraser Nelson, now editor of the Spectator does get it, as this article shows. But, of course, it was not just Blair. One man could not have created that disaster on his own.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)